Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
Congressional research reportSep 14, 2026
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
Updated September 14, 2026
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R42346
SUMMARY
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
The federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, about 28% of the 2.27 billion acres of
land in the United States. Four major federal land management agencies administer 606.8 million
acres of this land (as of September 30, 2024). They are the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS) in the Department of the
Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture. A fifth agency,
the Department of Defense (DOD, which is currently “using a secondary Department of War
designation” under Executive Order 14347), administers 8.4 million acres in the United States.
Together, the five agencies manage about 615.2 million acres, or 96% of the federal acreage.
Many other agencies administer the remaining 4% of federal lands.
The lands administered by the four major agencies are managed for many purposes, primarily
related to preservation, recreation, and development of natural resources. Yet the agencies have
distinct responsibilities. The BLM manages 244.4 million acres and the FS manages 193.1
million acres under similar multiple-use, sustained-yield mandates that support a variety of
activities and programs. The FWS manages 89.3 million acres, primarily to conserve and protect
animals and plants. The NPS manages 80.1 million acres in 434 diverse units to conserve lands
and resources and make them available for public use. The 8.4 million acres of DOD lands are
managed primarily for military training and testing.
The amount and percentage of federally owned land in each state vary widely, ranging from 0.3%
of land (in Connecticut and Iowa) to 79.8% of land (in Nevada). Federal land ownership is
concentrated in Alaska (60.8%) and 11 coterminous western states (45.9%), in contrast with
other states (4.1%). This western concentration has contributed to a higher degree of controversy
over federal land ownership and use in that part of the country.
R42346
September 14, 2026
Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural
Resources Policy
Eric P. Nardi
Analyst in Natural
Resources Policy
Mainon A. Schwartz
Legislative Attorney
Andrew Tilghman
Analyst in U.S. Defense
Infrastructure Policy
Scott Vierick
Research Librarian
Throughout the history of the United States, land laws have sought to dispose of some federal lands while keeping others in
federal ownership. During the 19th century, many laws encouraged western settlement through federal land disposal. Mostly
in the 20th century, emphasis shifted to retention of federal lands. Congress has provided the agencies with varying land
acquisition and disposal authorities, ranging from narrow (the NPS) to broad (the BLM). As a result of acquisitions and
disposals, from 1990 to 2024, total federal land ownership by the five agencies declined by 31.7 million acres (4.9%), from
646.9 million acres to 615.2 million acres. Much of the decline is due to BLM land disposals in Alaska and reductions in
DOD ownership in favor of other legal arrangements. By contrast, land ownership by the NPS, FWS, and FS increased since
1990. Further, 16 states had decreases of federal land during this period while 34 states and the District of Columbia had
increases.
Numerous issues affecting federal land management continue to face Congress. One set of issues relates to the extent of
federal ownership and whether to decrease, maintain, or increase the amount of federal holdings; the concentration of federal
lands in the West; the suitability and use of acquisition and disposal authorities; and the amount, type, and location of use of
acquisition funding. A second issue is the priority of acquiring new lands versus addressing the condition of current federal
infrastructure. The $45.16 billion maintenance backlog of the four major land management agencies in FY2025 is a factor for
congressional consideration. A third focus is the optimal balance between land protection and use (e.g., for energy
development, livestock grazing, recreation, and other purposes). Part of this debate involves whether federal lands should be
managed primarily to benefit the nation as a whole or to benefit the localities and states in which the federal lands are located.
Fourth, border control on federal lands, particularly along the southwestern border, presents specific challenges. This is due
to the length of the border, differing agency missions, and divergent views on immigration and constructing border barriers.
Congressional Research Service
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Historical Background ..................................................................................................................... 3
Current Federal Land Management ................................................................................................. 5
Agencies .................................................................................................................................... 5
Bureau of Land Management.............................................................................................. 5
U.S. Forest Service ............................................................................................................. 6
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................................................................ 6
National Park Service ......................................................................................................... 7
Department of Defense ....................................................................................................... 8
Federal Land Ownership, 2024 ................................................................................................. 9
Federal Land Ownership Changes, 1990-2024 ....................................................................... 17
Current Issues ................................................................................................................................ 21
Extent of Ownership ............................................................................................................... 21
Western Land Concentration ............................................................................................. 23
Maintaining Infrastructure and Lands ..................................................................................... 24
Protection and Use .................................................................................................................. 26
Border Security ....................................................................................................................... 27
Figures
Figure 1. Western Federal Lands Managed by Four Agencies ...................................................... 15
Figure 2. Eastern Federal Lands Managed by Four Agencies ....................................................... 16
Figure 3. Federal Lands in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands Managed by Four Agencies............................................................................................ 17
Figure 4. Federal Lands Managed by Four Agencies Near the Southwestern Border................... 29
Tables
Table 1. Total Federal Land in the United States Administered by Five Agencies, by
State, 2024 .................................................................................................................................. 10
Table 2. Federal Acreage in Each State, by Agency, 2024 ............................................................ 12
Table 3. Change in Federal Acreage in the United States Since 1990, by Agency........................ 18
Table 4. Change in Federal Acreage in the United States Since 1990, by State ............................ 19
Table 5. Federal Acreage in the United States, by Agency and State or Region, 2024 ................. 24
Contacts
Author Information........................................................................................................................ 29
Congressional Research Service
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
Introduction
The federal government owns and manages roughly 640 million acres of land in the United
States,1 or roughly 28% of the 2.27 billion total land acres.2 As of September 30, 2024, four major
federal land management agencies managed approximately 606.8 million acres of this land, or
roughly 95% of all federal land in the United States.3 These agencies are as follows: the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM), 244.4 million acres; the U.S. Forest Service (FS), 193.1 million
acres; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 89.3 million acres; and the National Park
Service (NPS), 80.1 million acres. Most of these lands are in the West, including Alaska. A fifth
agency, the Department of Defense (DOD), which is currently “using a secondary Department of
War designation” under Executive Order 14347, administered 8.4 million acres in the United
States, about 1% of all federal land in the United States.4 Together, the five agencies manage
about 615.2 million acres in the United States.5 The remaining acreage, approximately 4% of all
federal land in the United States, is managed by a variety of other government agencies.
1 Total federal land in the United States is not definitively known. It is estimated by the Congressional Research
Service (CRS) at roughly 640 million acres. This total reflects published estimates for the five agencies of focus in this
report, which have a combined acreage estimated at 615.2 million acres, as of September 30, 2024, as shown in Table
1. The sources for these five agencies are specified in the notes for Table 2. The total acreage managed by other federal
agencies is not known. Based on available sources, CRS estimates that other federal agencies manage roughly 25
million acres of federal land. The estimate of 640 million acres generally excludes lands in marine refuges and marine
national monuments and ownership of interests in lands (e.g., subsurface minerals, easements). It also does not reflect
Indian lands. According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the United States holds approximately 56 million acres
in trust for various Indian tribes and individuals. There are also other types of Indian lands. For additional information,
see U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), BIA, “Frequently Asked Questions,” https://www.bia.gov/frequently-askedquestions, and CRS In Focus IF11944, Tribal Lands: An Overview, by Mariel J. Murray.
2 DOI, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Public Land Statistics 2024, Table 1-1, Note a, indicates that the U.S. land
area is approximately 2.43 billion acres. This total includes inland waters, according to the BLM. This CRS report uses
a figure of 2.27 billion acres as the total U.S. land area, which excludes inland waters, as reported in some earlier
versions of Public Land Statistics (e.g., for FY2015). Public Land Statistics 2024 reflects data as of September 30,
2024.
3 Acreage figures in this report for the five agencies reflect data as of September 30, 2024. That was the most recent
time all of the five agencies covered herein had published data by state during the preparation of this report. Also, in
this report, the term federal land is used to refer to any land owned (fee simple title) and managed by the federal
government, regardless of its mode of acquisition or managing agency. It excludes lands administered by a federal
agency under easements, leases, contracts, or other arrangements. Public land is used to refer to lands managed by the
BLM as defined in 43 U.S.C. §1702(e).
4 Executive Order 14347 of September 5, 2025, “Restoring the United States Department of War,” 90 Federal Register
43893, September 10, 2025, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/10/2025-17508/restoring-the-unitedstates-department-of-war. The Department of Defense (DOD) is included in this report because of the relatively large
amount of land it manages and the availability of acreage statistics by state over the time period covered by this report.
It is not necessarily the fifth-largest land manager currently, however. For instance, as of September 30, 2024, DOD
acreage totaled 8.4 million, according to DOD, FY2025 Base Structure Report, September 30, 2024,
https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/imr/rpid/docs/Base-Structure-Report-FY25.xlsx. As of the same date, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) reported acreage of 12.0 million acres. See U.S. Army, Fiscal Year 2024 Untied States
Army Corps of Engineers Agency Financial Report, p. 12,
https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/FY%2024%20Civil%20Works%20Annual%20Financial%20Repo
rt.pdf. Moreover, there appears to be some overlap of acreage in the DOD and USACE FY2024 data, according to the
USACE, although USACE was not able to clarify the precise extent of any overlap. Personal communication between
CRS and USACE, Future Directions Branch, Headquarters, January 22, 2025.
5 In addition, the U.S. Forest Service (FS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), and
DOD manage varying acreages in the U.S. territories. Also, the FWS manages additional acres of marine refuges and
national monuments and DOD manages additional acres overseas.
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
The U.S. Constitution expressly vests Congress with authority over federal lands. Article IV,
Section 3, clause 2, empowers Congress to dispose of and regulate all federal property. The U.S.
Supreme Court has explained that this means Congress’s power over federal lands is virtually
unlimited.6
Ownership and use of federal lands have stirred controversy for decades, leading to public debate
over multiple issues, including the extent to which the federal government should own land.7
Some parties, including some states, have raised legal challenges to Congress’s authority over
federal lands or attempted to effect a particular disposition of federal land.8 Also, executive
branch decisions regarding the designation, management, or disposition of federal lands
sometimes have led to judicial challenges.9 Other issues include whether to focus resources on
maintenance of existing infrastructure and lands or acquisition of new areas, how to balance use
and protection of lands, and how to ensure the security of international borders along the federal
lands of multiple agencies.
Recent Congresses, including the 119th Congress, have considered directing the acquisition,
disposal,10 or other treatment of federal lands in accordance with their policy determinations.
Congress has examined these issues through legislative proposals, program oversight, and annual
6 Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U. S. 529, 539 (1976), quoting United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 29 (1940).
7 For a range of perspectives, see John Ruple, “Western Public Land Law and the Evolving Management Landscape,”
pp. 20-36, in Erika Allen Wolters and Brent S. Steel, eds, The Environmental Politics and Policy of Western Public
Lands (Oregon State University Press, 2020); Holly Fretwell and Shawn Regan, “Divided Lands: State vs. Federal
Management in the West,” Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) Public Lands Report, March 2015,
https://www.perc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/150303_PERC_DividedLands.pdf; and Lisa W. Foderaro, “America
Needs More Public Lands, Not Less,” Trust For Public Land, 2025, https://www.tpl.org/wpcontent/uploads/2025/04/TPL-Special-Report_We-Need-More-Public-Lands-Not-Less_Final.pdf.
8 In 2012, for example, Utah’s state legislature enacted the Transfer of Public Lands Act, which sought to require the
United States, on or before December 31, 2014, to (1) extinguish its title to public lands within the state that did not fall
within a list of exceptions; and (2) transfer title to those lands to the State of Utah. Utah Code Ann. §63L-6-103. No
such transfer took place. In 2024, Utah attempted to bring the matter directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting
leave to file a bill of complaint asking whether a policy of “perpetual federal retention of unappropriated public lands in
Utah is unconstitutional.” The United States opposed the filing, and in January 2025, the Court denied Utah leave to
file its bill of complaint, effectively choosing not to entertain the question.
Utah’s actions echoed a movement in several western states a few decades earlier that came to be known as the
Sagebrush Rebellion. In the 1970s and 1980s, various states enacted statutes attempting to lay claim to federal lands.
See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§37-901 (1980); Ch. 633, 1979 Nev. Stats. 13; N.M. Stat. Ann.§19-15-9 (1980); Utah Code
Ann. §65-11-1-9 (1980); Wash. Rev. Code §79.80.020 (1980); Wvo. Stat. §36-12-10 (1980). Private entities supportive
of the movement used judicial challenges to try to overcome congressional withdrawal of certain public lands for
conservation purposes. E.g., Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. Hodel, 790 F.2d 760, 761 (9th Cir. 1986). For additional
historical context on actions of states to foster control of federal lands within state borders, see CRS Report R44267,
State Management of Federal Lands: Frequently Asked Questions, by Carol Hardy Vincent. For an example of judicial
review in the context of withdrawing federal lands for particular purposes, see CRS Report R49048, Presidential
Authority Under the Antiquities Act, by Cassandra J. Barnum.
9 For example, actions of Presidents to reduce or expand the size of national monuments occasionally have been the
subject of lawsuits. As examples, see Hopi Tribe v. Trump, No. 17-cv-02590 (D.D.C. filed Dec. 4, 2017), consolidating
three cases challenging President Trump’s modification of the Bears Ears National Monument; and Garfield County v.
Biden, No. 22-cv-0059 (D. Utah filed Aug. 15, 2023), challenging President Biden’s expansion of the Bears Ears
National Monument.
10 Current authorities for acquiring and disposing of federal lands are unique to each agency. For a description of these
authorities, see CRS Report RL34273, Federal Land Ownership: Acquisition and Disposal Authorities, by Carol Hardy
Vincent et al. For the BLM, see also CRS Report R48079, Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of
Land Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
Congressional Research Service
2
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
appropriations for the federal land management agencies.11 Judicial challenges and legislative and
executive efforts generally have not resulted in broad changes to the level of federal ownership.
Historical Background
Federal lands and resources have played a significant role in American history, adding to the
strength and stature of the federal government, serving as an attraction and opportunity for
settlement and economic development, and providing a source of revenue for schools,
transportation, national defense, and other national, state, and local needs.
The formation of the U.S. federal government was particularly influenced by the struggle for
control over what were then known as the “western” lands—the lands between the Appalachian
Mountains and the Mississippi River that were claimed by the original colonies. The original
states reluctantly ceded the lands to the developing new government. This cession, together with
granting constitutional powers to the new federal government, including the authority to regulate
federal property and to create new states, played a crucial role in transforming the weak central
government under the Articles of Confederation into a stronger, centralized federal government
under the U.S. Constitution.12
Subsequent federal land laws sought to reserve some federal lands for particular purposes (such
as for national forests and national parks) and to sell or otherwise dispose of other lands to raise
money or encourage transportation, development, and settlement. From the earliest days, these
options took on East/West overtones, with easterners more likely to view federal lands as national
public property, and westerners more likely to view the lands as necessary for local use and
development.13 Most agreed, however, on measures that promoted settlement of the lands to pay
soldiers, to reduce the national debt, and to strengthen the nation. This settlement trend
accelerated with federal acquisition of additional territory through the Louisiana Purchase in
1803, the Oregon Compromise with England in 1846, and cession of lands by treaty after the
Mexican War in 1848.14
In the mid-to-late 1800s, Congress enacted many laws to encourage and accelerate the settlement
of the West by disposing of federal lands. Examples include the Homestead Act of 1862 and the
Desert Lands Entry Act of 1877. Approximately 1.29 billion acres of public domain land was
transferred out of federal ownership between 1781 and 2024. The total included transfers of 816
million acres to private ownership (individuals, railroads, etc.), 328 million acres to states
11 As examples, see provisions of
P.L. 111-11, Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009; P.L. 113-291, Carl
Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015; P.L. 118-234,
Expanding Public Lands Outdoor Recreation Experiences Act (EXPLORE Act); P.L. 119-74, Division C, Department
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Federal Lands, The State of Our Nation’s Federal Forests and Outlook for the
2026 Wildfire Year, 119th Cong,, 2nd sess., June 4, 2026,
https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=418807.
12 Paul Gates, History of Public Land Law Development (Government Publishing Office, 1968), pp. 1-3, pp. 49-57.
13 Gates, History of Public Land Law Development, p. 28.
14 These major land acquisitions gave rise to a distinction in the laws between public domain lands, which essentially
are those ceded by the original states or obtained from a foreign sovereign (via purchase, treaty, or other means), and
acquired lands, which are those obtained from a state or individual by exchange, purchase, or gift. About 90% of all
federal lands are public domain lands, while the other 10% are acquired lands. Many laws were enacted that related
only to public domain lands. Even though the distinction has lost most of its underlying significance today, different
laws may still apply depending on the original nature of the lands involved.
Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
generally, and 144 million acres in Alaska under state and Native selection laws.15 Most transfers
to private ownership (97%) occurred before 1940; homestead entries, for example, peaked in
1910 at 18.3 million acres and dropped below 200,000 acres annually after 1935, until being fully
eliminated in 1986.16
Although several earlier laws had protected some lands and resources, such as salt deposits and
certain timber for military use, new laws in the late 1800s reflected the growing concern that
rapid development threatened some of the scenic treasures of the nation, as well as resources that
would be needed for future use. A preservation and conservation movement evolved to ensure
that certain lands and resources were left untouched or reserved for future use. For example,
Yellowstone National Park was established in 1872 to preserve its resources in a natural
condition, and to dedicate recreation opportunities for the public. It was the world’s first national
park,17 and like the other early parks, Yellowstone was protected by the U.S. Army—primarily
from poachers of wildlife or timber. In 1891, concern over the effects of timber harvests on water
supplies and downstream flooding led to the creation of forest reserves (renamed national forests
in 1907).18
Emphasis shifted during the 20th century from the disposal and conveyance of title to private
citizens to the retention and management of the remaining federal lands. During debates on the
Taylor Grazing Act of 1934,19 some western Members of Congress acknowledged the poor
prospects for relinquishing federal lands to the states, but language included in the act left
disposal as a possibility. It was not until the enactment of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) that Congress expressly declared that the remaining public
domain lands generally would remain in federal ownership.20 This declaration of permanent
federal land ownership was a significant factor in what became known as the Sagebrush
Rebellion, an effort in the 1970s and 1980s to strengthen state or local control over federal land
and management decisions. In the second decade of the 21st century, there was renewed interest in
some western states in assuming ownership of some federal lands within their borders.21 That
interest stemmed in part from concerns about the extent, condition, and cost of federal land
ownership and the type and amount of land uses and revenue derived from federal lands.
15 DOI, BLM, Public Land Statistics, 2024, Table 1-2, https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2025-07/BLM-
Public-Land-Statistics-2024.pdf.
16 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to
1970 (GPO, 1976), H.Doc. 93-78 (93rd Congress, 1st Session), pp. 428-429. The homesteading laws were generally
repealed in 1976 by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C. §§1701, et seq., although homesteading
was allowed to continue in Alaska for another 10 years.
17 Act of March 1, 1872; 16 U.S.C. §21 et seq. “Yo-Semite” had been established by an act of Congress in 1864, to
protect Yosemite Valley from development, but was transferred to the State of California to administer. In 1890,
surrounding lands were designated as Yosemite National Park, and in 1905, Yosemite Valley was returned to federal
jurisdiction and incorporated into the park. Still earlier, Hot Springs Reservation (AR) had been reserved in 1832; it
was dedicated to public use in 1880 and designated as Hot Springs National Park in 1921.
18 The Act of March 4, 1907 (34 Stat. 1269) essentially provided that forest reserves would be thereafter known as
national forests. See the editorial notes to 16 U.S.C. §488. For additional information on establishment and
modification of the National Forest System, see CRS Report R43872, National Forest System Management: Overview
and Issues for Congress, by Anne A. Riddle, especially pp. 2-3.
19 43 U.S.C. §§315 et seq.
20 43 U.S.C. §§1701 et seq. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) also established a
comprehensive system of management for the remaining western public lands, and a definitive mission and policy
statement for the BLM.
21 For an overview of some efforts and issues relating to state management of federal lands during that period, see CRS
Report R44267, State Management of Federal Lands: Frequently Asked Questions, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
Current Federal Land Management
The creation of national parks and forest reserves laid the foundation for the current federal
agencies whose primary purposes are managing natural resources on federal lands—the BLM,
FS, FWS, and NPS. These four agencies were created at different times, and their missions and
purposes differ. A fifth agency, the DOD, manages lands consisting of military bases, training
ranges, and more. These five agencies, which together manage about 95% of all federal land, are
described below. Numerous other federal agencies—the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau
of Reclamation,22 U.S. Postal Service, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Department of Energy, and many more—each administer relatively small amounts of additional
federal lands.
Agencies23
Bureau of Land Management
The BLM was formed in 1946 by combining two existing agencies.24 One was the Grazing
Service (first known as the DOI Grazing Division), established in 1934 to administer grazing on
public rangelands. The other was the General Land Office, which had been created in 1812 to
oversee disposal of the federal lands.25 As of September 30, 2024, the BLM administered 244.4
million acres, more federal lands in the United States than any other agency. BLM lands are
heavily concentrated (more than 99%) in the 11 contiguous western states and Alaska.26
As defined in FLPMA, enacted in 1976,27 BLM management responsibilities are similar to those
of the FS—sustained yields of multiple uses, including recreation, grazing, timber, energy and
minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish habitat, and conservation. However, each agency
historically has emphasized different uses. For instance, more rangelands are managed by the
BLM, while most federal forests are managed by the FS. In addition, the BLM administers more
than 700 million acres of federal subsurface mineral estate throughout the nation, including the
subsurface of other federally owned lands and some privately owned surface lands.28
22 The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), a federal agency created in 1902, is responsible for much of the water
infrastructure in the 17 states west of the Mississippi River. Reclamation is the largest water wholesaler in the country
and provides irrigation water for 10 million acres of farmland. Pursuant to its authorities to develop and maintain water
resources infrastructure, Reclamation owns approximately 6.1 million acres of land in the western United States,
according to the agency. See DOI, Reclamation, “About Us—Fact Sheet” (last updated December 10, 2025),
https://www.usbr.gov/main/about/fact.html.
23 For a list of CRS experts for federal land management agencies and issues, see CRS Report R42656, Federal Land
Management Agencies and Programs: CRS Experts, coordinated by Mark K. DeSantis.
24 Paul W. Gates, History of Public Land Law Development, written for the Public Land Law Review Commission
(Washington, DC: GPO, Nov. 1968), pp. 610-622.
25 The General Land Office administered the forest reserves prior to the creation of the FS in 1905.
26 The 11 western states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming. Data on BLM acreage by state are contained in DOI, BLM, Public Land Statistics, 2024,
Table 1-4, https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2025-07/BLM-Public-Land-Statistics-2024.pdf. Figures
represent acreage as of September 30, 2024.
27 FLPMA is sometimes called the BLM “Organic Act,” because it consolidated and articulated the agency’s
management responsibilities.
28 DOI, BLM, Public Land Statistics, 2024, Table 1-3, https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2025-07/BLMPublic-Land-Statistics-2024.pdf. Figures represent acreage as of September 30, 2024. Not all of the more than 700
million acres contain extractable mineral and energy resources. For brief information related to federal subsurface
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
U.S. Forest Service
The FS is the oldest of the four federal land management agencies. It was established in the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1905 and is charged with conducting forestry research,
providing assistance to nonfederal forest owners, and managing the National Forest System
(NFS).29 As of September 30, 2024, the FS administered 193.1 million acres of land in the United
States,30 predominantly in the West, while also managing about three-fifths of all federal lands in
the East (as shown in Table 5).
The first forest reserves—later renamed national forests—originally were authorized to protect
the lands, preserve water flows, and provide timber. These purposes were expanded in the
Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960.31 This act added recreation, livestock grazing, and
wildlife and fish habitat as purposes of the national forests, with wilderness added in 1964.32 The
1960 act directed that these multiple uses be managed in a “harmonious and coordinated” manner
“in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people.”33 The act also directed
the FS to manage renewable resources under the principle of sustained yield, meaning to achieve
a high level of resource outputs in perpetuity without impairing the productivity of the lands.34
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The first national wildlife refuge was established by executive order in 1903, although it was not
until 1966 that the refuges were aggregated into the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS)
administered by the FWS.35 The NWRS includes wildlife refuges, national monument areas,
waterfowl production areas, and wildlife coordination units. Outside of the NWRS, the FWS
administers lands for administrative sites, National Fish Hatcheries, and national monument
areas. In total, as of September 30, 2024, the FWS administered 89.3 million acres of federal land
in the United States, of which 76.7 million acres (85.9%) were in Alaska.36
estate, see CRS Report R48130, Energy Production on Federal Lands: Leasing and Authorization, by Adam Vann, pp.
1-2, and Andrew C. Mergen, “Surface Tension: The Problem of Federal/Private Split Estate Lands,” Land & Water
Law Review, vol. 33, issue 2, art. 3 (1998).
29 In 1891, Congress had authorized the President to establish forest reserves from the public domain lands
administered by the DOI (Act of March 3, 1891; 16 U.S.C. §471). This authority was repealed in 1976. See also the
Organic Administration Act of 1897, 16 U.S.C. §§473 et seq.
30 Information in this report is based on FY2024 data, for consistency with the acreage data presented for the other
agencies. The data are taken from Department of Agriculture (USDA), FS, Land Areas of the National Forest System—
As of Sept 30, 2024, Tables 1 and 4, https://usfspublic.app.box.com/s/rhq1lm3rq3wauhtz6yulanuzoijaaqsw/file/2101305054568. Data reflect land within the National
Forest System, including national forests, national grasslands, purchase units, land utilization projects, research and
experimental areas, and other areas. The FS manages an additional 28,929 acres in the U.S. territories. For information
on FS areas in FY2025, see USDA, FS, Land Areas of the National Forest System—As of Sept 30, 2025, https://usfspublic.app.box.com/s/rhq1lm3rq3wauhtz6yulanuzoijaaqsw/file/2146439917355.
31 16 U.S.C. §§528-531.
32 The Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. §§1131-1136.
33 16 U.S.C. §531(a).
34 For information on the National Forest System, see CRS Report R43872, National Forest System Management:
Overview and Issues for Congress, by Anne A. Riddle.
35 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. §§668dd-668ee.
36 Information in this report is based on FY2024 data, for consistency with the acreage data presented for the other
agencies. The data are taken from DOI, FWS, Statistical Data Tables for Fish & Wildlife Service Lands (as of
9/30/2024, Table 1A, https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/202508/2024_annual_report_of_lands_data_tables_v2.pdf. Data reflect federally owned lands, submerged lands, and waters,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
The NWRS’s mission is to administer a network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.37 Other uses
(recreation, hunting, timber cutting, oil or gas drilling, etc.) may be permitted, to the extent that
they are compatible with the NWRS mission and an individual unit’s purpose.38 However,
wildlife-related activities (hunting, bird watching, hiking, education, etc.) are considered “priority
uses” and are given priority consideration in refuge planning. The relative clarity of the mission
generally has minimized conflicts over refuge management and use, although there are
exceptions.39
National Park Service
The NPS was created in 1916 to manage the growing number of park units established by
Congress and monuments proclaimed by the President.40 As of September 30, 2024, the National
Park System had grown to 434 units with 80.1 million acres of federal land in the United States.41
About two-thirds of the lands (52.5 million acres, or 65.6%) are in Alaska. NPS units have
diverse titles—national park, national monument, national preserve, national historic site, national
recreation area, national battlefield, and many more.42
The NPS has a dual mission—to preserve unique resources and to provide for their enjoyment by
the public. Activities that harvest or remove resources from NPS lands generally are prohibited.
Park units include natural areas, prehistoric sites, and places relevant to American history, as well
as recreational opportunities. The tension between providing recreation and preserving resources
has caused many management challenges.
over which the FWS has sole or primary jurisdiction in the 50 states. The FWS manages an additional 25,219 acres in
the U.S. territories and an estimated 662 million acres within the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands, which primarily include
marine areas in the Pacific Ocean. For information on FWS areas in FY2025, see DOI, FWS, Statistical Data Tables
for Fish & Wildlife Service Lands (as of 9/30/25), https://www.fws.gov/media/statistical-data-tables-fish-wildlifeservice-lands-9302025.
37 16 U.S.C. §668dd(a)(2).
38 In the case where the NWRS mission and a unit’s purpose are in conflict, the unit’s purpose takes priority (16 U.S.C.
§§668dd(a)(4)(D)). For example, see CRS Report RL33872, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): An Overview,
coordinated by Laura B. Comay.
39 On some FWS lands, there are preexisting property rights, particularly of subsurface resources but also easements or
rights-of-way. In such cases, use of these rights may conflict with primary uses of a refuge. Where possible, the FWS
may seek to acquire these rights through purchase from willing sellers. For additional information on FWS-managed
lands, see CRS Report R48381, National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS): Overview and Issues for Congress, by Eric
P. Nardi.
40 NPS was created by the Act of Aug. 25, 1916; 16 U.S.C. §§1-4.
41 Information in this report is based on FY2024 data, for consistency with the acreage data presented for the other
agencies. See DOI, NPS, National Park Service Acreage Reports, 9/30/2024,
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/acreagereports.htm. Data reflect federally owned lands managed by the NPS. Also,
the NPS managed an additional 26,859 acres in the U.S. territories as of September 30, 2024. For more recent
information on acreage of units of the National Park System, see the quarterly reports at NPS, “National Park Service
Acreage Reports,” https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/acreagereports.htm. For information on establishment of units of
the National Park System, see CRS Report RS20158, National Park System: Establishing New Units, by Laura B.
Comay.
42 For additional information on the types of units within the National Park System, see CRS Report R41816, National
Park System: What Do the Different Park Titles Signify?, by Laura B. Comay.
Congressional Research Service
7
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
Department of Defense43
The National Security Act of 1947 (P.L. 80-253) established a Department of Defense and placed
under its purview three “military departments,” including the Department of the Army, the
Department of the Navy, and the newly created Department of the Air Force.44 These military
departments retained responsibility for managing the land on federal military reservations, with
some transfer of Army land to the Air Force upon its creation.
As of September 30, 2024, there were more than 4,870 defense sites worldwide on a total of 26.8
million acres of land owned, leased, or otherwise possessed by the DOD.45 These sites include
traditional military installations and naval port facilities as well as large tracts of land in sparsely
populated areas that the DOD uses for training in land and aerial warfare or testing various
weapons systems. The DOD owns 8.4 million acres in the United States, with individual parcel
sizes ranging from 1 acre to more than 1.5 million acres.46 Although management of military
reservations remains the responsibility of each of the military departments or defense agencies,
those secretaries and directors operate under the centralized direction of the Secretary of Defense.
With regard to natural resource conservation, defense instruction provides in part that
a. The principal purpose of DoD lands, waters, airspace, coastal areas, and nearshore areas is to
support mission-related activities and further the national defense strategy.
(1) All DoD natural resources programs should be integrated with the national defense
strategy, mission activities, installation planning and programming, and other activities, to the
extent practicable.
(2) In accordance with Sections 670 through 670f of Title 16, United States Code (U.S.C.),
also known and referred to in this issuance as the “Sikes Act,” all DoD Components will manage
natural resources to:
(a) Guarantee DoD Components continued access to, with no net loss to the capability
and capacity of, DoD lands, waters, airspace, coastal areas, and nearshore areas to perform
mission activities.
(b) Sustain the long-term ecological integrity and resilience of DoD lands, waters,
airspace, coastal areas, and nearshore areas and ecosystems services. 47
The DOD has authority under 10 U.S.C. §2667 to lease DOD property to third parties under
certain circumstances. In certain circumstances, the DOD may use the General Services
Administration (GSA) real property disposition process to dispose of certain property.48
43 As noted, DOD is “using a secondary Department of War designation,” under Executive Order 14347 dated
September 5, 2025.
44 See National Security Act of 1947, Section 2, as amended, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS1493/pdf/COMPS-1493.pdf. This provision is codified at 50 U.S.C. §3002.
45
DOD, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Infrastructure, Base Structure Report, Fiscal Year
2025 Baseline (A Summary of the Real Property Inventory Data), as of September 30, 2024, Fast Facts tab,
https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/imr/rpid/docs/Base-Structure-Report-FY25.xlsx.
46 DOD, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Infrastructure, Base Structure Report, Fiscal Year
2025 Baseline (A Summary of the Real Property Inventory Data), as of September 30, 2024,
https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/imr/rpid/docs/Base-Structure-Report-FY25.xlsx. Also, the DOD managed an additional
171,524 acres in the U.S. territories and 19,921 acres overseas as of that date. USACE indicated to CRS that some (but
not all) lands managed by USACE are reflected in the DOD estimate of 8.4 million acres in the United States.
However, USACE was not able to readily provide the precise extent of the overlap. Personal communication between
CRS and USACE, Future Directions Branch, Headquarters, January 22, 2025.
47 DOD, DoD Instruction 4715.03, Natural Resources Management, July 22, 2024, change 1 effective September 9,
2025, https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/471503p.pdf.
48 GSA, “Real Property Disposition,” https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/real-property-disposition.
Congressional Research Service
8
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
Alternatively, Congress has in the past authorized a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Commission, which has involved a unique DOD-led property disposition process that prioritizes
community input in determining the follow-on use for surplus military property.49 In some
instances, federal statutes may make a distinction between laws governing the use of land that the
DOD obtained directly from the public domain compared with “acquired lands” that the DOD
purchased or otherwise obtained from a previous nonfederal landowner.50
Federal Land Ownership, 2024
The 615.2 million acres of federal land in the United States managed by the five major land
management agencies represents about 28% of the total land base of 2.27 billion acres. Table 1
provides data on the combined acreage of federal land administered by the four major federal
land management agencies and the DOD in each state and the District of Columbia. The lands
administered by each of the five agencies in each state are shown in Table 2.51 These tables
reflect federal acreage as of September 30, 2024. The figures understate total federal land, since
they do not include lands administered by other federal agencies, such as the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Department of Energy. Table 1 also identifies the total acreage of each state
and the percentage of land in each state administered by the five federal land agencies. These
percentages point to significant variation in the federal presence within states. The figures range
from 0.3% of land (in Connecticut and Iowa) to 79.8% of land (in Nevada). Figure 1, Figure 2,
and Figure 3 show these federal lands. Figure 1 is a map of federal lands in the West; Figure 2 is
a map of federal lands in the East; and Figure 3 is a map of federal lands in Alaska, Hawaii,
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam.
While 14 eastern or midwestern states and the District of Columbia each contain less than half a
million acres of federal land,52 11 of the contiguous western states and Alaska each have more
than 10 million acres managed by these five agencies within their borders.53 This contrast is
partly the result of early treaties, land settlement laws and patterns, and laws requiring states to
surrender claims to federal lands within their borders as conditions of statehood.54 As noted,
ownership and management of federal lands often has been controversial, especially in states
49 For additional information about DOD’s excess lands, see CRS Report R48547, Excess Military Infrastructure and
the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Process, by Andrew Tilghman.
50 See, for example, Title 30 U.S.C. Chapter 7, Lease of Mineral Deposits within Acquired Lands.
51 Some county-level data are available through the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program, administered by the
DOI. For these data, DOI, “Payment in Lieu of Taxes,” https://pilt.doi.gov/counties.cfm. However, though most lands
of the four major federal land management agencies are eligible for PILT payments, a small fraction are not. Also,
DOD lands are among those generally not eligible for PILT payments. A small portion of PILT payments are made for
certain lands managed by agencies other than the five covered in this report. Thus, the PILT county-level data do not
always match the state acreage data shown in this report. For additional information on PILT, see CRS In Focus
IF11772, Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT): Section 6902 Payments, by Carol Hardy Vincent and Eric P. Nardi; and
CRS Report R46260, The Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program: An Overview, by Carol Hardy Vincent and Eric
P. Nardi.
52 As seen in Table 1 below, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont each contain less than half a
million acres of federal land. In this report, the District of Columbia is included in descriptions of “states” unless
denoted separately.
53 As seen in Table 1 below, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon,
Utah, Washington. and Wyoming each contain more than 10 million acres of federal land.
54 For example, legislation providing statehood to several western states conditioned that statehood on the states’
agreement to disclaim “all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within” their territories, which
remained under the control of the United States. E.g., 13 Stat. 30, §4, 38th Cong. (1864) (Nevada Enabling Act); 28
Stat. 107, §3, 53rd Cong. (1894) (Utah Enabling Act).
Congressional Research Service
9
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
where the federal government is a predominant or majority landholder and where competing or
conflicting uses of the lands may lead to frequent disputes.
Table 1. Total Federal Land in the United States
Administered by Five Agencies, by State, 2024
Total Federal
Acreage
Total Acreage
in State
Federal Acreage’s
% of State
875,707
32,678,400
2.7%
Alaska
222,373,941
365,481,600
60.8%
Arizona
27,961,796
72,688,000
38.5%
Arkansas
3,174,549
33,599,360
9.4%
California
45,391,499
100,206,720
45.3%
Colorado
24,118,417
66,485,760
36.3%
Connecticut
9,775
3,135,360
0.3%
Delaware
29,934
1,265,920
2.4%
D.C.
9,807
39,040
25.1%
Florida
4,540,641
34,721,280
13.1%
Georgia
1,974,694
37,295,360
5.3%
Hawaiia
861,254
4,105,600
21.0%
Idaho
32,785,766
52,933,120
61.9%
Illinois
414,772
35,795,200
1.2%
Indiana
383,751
23,158,400
1.7%
Iowa
99,698
35,860,480
0.3%
Kansas
254,412
52,510,720
0.5%
Kentucky
1,022,623
25,512,320
4.0%
Louisiana
1,391,067
28,867,840
4.8%
Maine
305,213
19,847,680
1.5%
Maryland
209,648
6,319,360
3.3%
Massachusetts
62,956
5,034,880
1.3%
Michigan
3,642,187
36,492,160
10.0%
Minnesota
3,506,284
51,205,760
6.8%
Mississippi
1,556,411
30,222,720
5.1%
Missouri
1,704,258
44,248,320
3.9%
Montana
27,168,417
93,271,040
29.1%
Nebraska
558,783
49,031,680
1.1%
Nevada
56,081,005
70,264,320
79.8%
New Hampshire
806,343
5,768,960
14.0%
New Jersey
183,084
4,813,440
3.8%
New Mexico
24,581,379
77,766,400
31.6%
Alabama
Congressional Research Service
10
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
Total Federal
Acreage
Total Acreage
in State
Federal Acreage’s
% of State
210,819
30,680,960
0.7%
North Carolina
2,428,165
31,402,880
7.7%
North Dakota
1,736,495
44,452,480
3.9%
Ohio
305,753
26,222,080
1.2%
Oklahoma
653,958
44,087,680
1.5%
Oregon
32,226,209
61,598,720
52.3%
Pennsylvania
608,796
28,804,480
2.1%
Rhode Island
4,458
677,120
0.7%
South Carolina
911,150
19,374,080
4.7%
South Dakota
2,645,668
48,881,920
5.4%
Tennessee
1,269,357
26,727,680
4.7%
Texas
3,191,777
168,217,600
1.9%
Utah
33,240,265
52,696,960
63.1%
Vermont
474,866
5,936,640
8.0%
Virginia
2,321,799
25,496,320
9.1%
Washington
12,227,674
42,693,760
28.6%
West Virginia
1,140,201
15,410,560
7.4%
Wisconsin
1,855,622
35,011,200
5.3%
Wyoming
29,710,191
62,343,040
47.7%
U.S. Total
615,203,294
2,271,343,360
27.1%
New York
Sources: For federal lands, see sources listed in Table 2. Total acreage of states is from U.S. General Services
Administration, Office of Governmentwide Policy, Federal Real Property Profile, as of September 30, 2004, Table 16,
pp. 18-19.
Notes: Figures understate federal lands in each state and the total in the United States. They include land of five
land-managing agencies: the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (FS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), and Department of Defense (DOD). (The DOD is currently “using
a secondary Department of War designation” under Executive Order 14347.) Thus, the figures exclude federal
lands managed by other agencies, such as the Bureau of Reclamation. They also exclude any land managed by the
five agencies in the territories, DOD-managed acreage overseas, submerged lands in the outer continental shelf,
and FWS-managed land within the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands, primarily marine areas in the Pacific Ocean.
The total federal acreage column does not add to the precise total shown due to small discrepancies in the
sources used. This is also the case for other tables in this report. Also, here and throughout the report, figures
might not sum to the totals shown due to rounding.
a. This figure includes approximately 253,000 acres of submerged lands and waters within the Hawaiian Islands
National Wildlife Refuge. Thus, the percentage shown overestimates the area that is federally owned.
Congressional Research Service
11
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
Table 2. Federal Acreage in Each State, by Agency, 2024
State
Alabama
Bureau of
Land
Management
U.S. Forest
Service
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife
Service
National
Park Service
Department
of Defense
3,137
673,400
34,041
17,540
147,589
Alaska
71,105,178
22,132,738
76,653,680
52,456,775
25,570
Arizona
12,057,980
11,183,887
1,683,554
2,658,489
377,886
Arkansas
2,732
2,593,690
392,286
100,723
85,118
California
14,989,808
20,838,146
311,107
7,655,258
1,597,180
Colorado
8,344,829
14,490,250
183,145
679,044
421,149
Connecticut
0
23
2,425
5,846
1,481
Delaware
0
0
25,543
890
3,501
D.C.
0
0
0
8,479
1,328
Florida
2,345
1,217,769
306,892
2,491,692
521,943
Georgia
0
868,513
489,401
41,231
575,549
Hawaiia
0
0
310,218
379,534
171,502
Idaho
11,768,027
20,451,561
51,002
512,086
3,090
Illinois
20
304,723
90,726
39
19,264
Indiana
0
204,380
17,743
10,875
150,753
Iowa
0
0
75,803
2,670
21,225
Kansas
9
108,621
29,590
465
115,727
Kentucky
0
818,751
16,560
95,182
92,130
Louisiana
5,383
608,478
593,219
21,145
162,842
Maine
0
53,890
75,962
157,762
17,599
Maryland
572
0
53,624
41,878
113,574
0
0
23,720
33,530
5,706
Michigan
610
2,879,011
118,132
632,443
11,991
Minnesota
1,296
2,832,995
529,986
139,900
2,107
Mississippi
5,123
1,190,990
211,668
105,754
42,876
Missouri
59
1,510,185
62,020
54,742
77,252
Montana
8,053,643
17,254,317
639,655
1,214,871
5,931
Nebraska
5,155
351,197
175,674
6,462
20,295
47,225,132
5,761,289
2,225,565
797,690
71,329
New Hampshire
0
754,393
35,120
13,696
3,134
New Jersey
0
0
77,200
35,815
70,069
New Mexico
13,491,010
9,229,797
332,058
472,925
1,055,589
New York
0
16,389
29,679
34,115
130,636
North Carolina
0
1,258,940
425,520
368,087
375,618
North Dakota
58,674
1,103,162
492,461
71,359
10,839
Massachusetts
Nevada
Congressional Research Service
12
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
State
Bureau of
Land
Management
Ohio
U.S. Forest
Service
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife
Service
National
Park Service
Department
of Defense
0
244,357
10,120
20,497
30,779
1,377
399,772
109,011
10,011
133,787
15,727,901
15,700,419
583,280
196,271
18,338
Pennsylvania
0
514,183
15,897
53,876
24,840
Rhode Island
0
0
2,435
8
2,015
South Carolina
0
639,394
133,990
32,556
105,210
South Dakota
275,738
2,006,708
207,116
148,022
8,084
0
725,299
54,962
360,616
128,480
Texas
11,947
756,953
608,020
1,204,923
609,934
Utah
22,759,900
8,193,219
110,567
2,098,111
78,468
Vermont
0
414,099
38,441
10,465
11,861
Virginia
805
1,674,033
133,527
307,533
205,901
Washington
437,317
9,356,329
171,935
1,834,687
427,406
West Virginia
0
1,047,859
22,265
67,217
2,860
Wisconsin
1,992
1,526,808
204,533
62,465
59,824
Wyoming
18,049,385
9,226,016
74,517
2,345,726
14,547
U.S. Total
244,387,084
193,116,933
89,255,595
80,071,977
8,371,705
Territoriesb
0
28,929
25,219
26,859
171,524
Overseas
0
0
0
0
19,921
244,387,084
193,145,862
89,280,814
80,098,836
8,563,150
Oklahoma
Oregon
Tennessee
Agency Total
Sources: For the BLM: DOI, BLM, Public Land Statistics 2024, Table 1-4, column entitled “BLM Public Lands,”
https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2025-07/BLM-Public-Land-Statistics-2024.pdf. Data reflect BLM
ownership as of September 30, 2024. For earlier fiscal years, sources included the pertinent volume of Public
Land Statistics and data obtained by CRS from the BLM.
For the FS: USDA, FS, Land Areas of the National Forest System—As of Sept 30, 2024, Tables 1 and 4, “NFS
Acreage” column, https://www.fs.usda.gov/land/staff/lar/LAR2024/lar2024index.html. Data reflect land within the
National Forest System, including national forests, national grasslands, purchase units, land utilization projects,
experimental areas, and other areas. Table I shows the agency total and Table 4 shows the individual state and
territory acreages reflected here. For earlier fiscal years, sources included the pertinent volume of Land Areas of
the National Forest System and data obtained by CRS from the FS.
For the FWS: DOI, FWS, Statistical Data Tables for Fish & Wildlife Service Lands (as of 9/30/2024), Table 1A,
https://www.fws.gov/media/statistical-data-tables-fish-wildlife-service-lands-9302024. Data reflect federally owned
land over which the FWS has sole or primary jurisdiction. Totals are summed from data in Table IA columns
“Reserved from Public Domain; Primary Jurisdiction,” “Acquired by Other Federal Agency; Primary Jurisdiction,”
“Purchased by FWS; Acres,” and “Donated.” For earlier fiscal years, sources include the pertinent edition of the
Annual Lands Report Data Tables and data obtained by CRS from the FWS.
For the NPS: DOI, NPS, Land Resources Division, National Park Service—Acreage by State—09/30/2024, column
entitled NPS Fee Acres, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/acreagereports.htm. Data reflect federally owned
lands managed by the NPS. For earlier fiscal years, sources included the pertinent edition of the NPS Acreage
Reports and data obtained by CRS from the NPS.
For the DOD: DOD, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Infrastructure, Base Structure
Report—FY25 Baseline (As of 30 Sept 2024), https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/imr/rpid/docs/Base-Structure-Report-
Congressional Research Service
13
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
FY25.xlsx. Totals reflect data presented in the “Acres Owned” columns in the “Federal DOD Main Report” tab
and the “Federal Other Sites” tab. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) indicated to CRS that some (but
not all) lands managed by USACE are reflected in the DOD estimate of 8.6 million, as shown in this table.
However, USACE was not able to readily provide the precise extent of the overlap. Personal communication
between CRS and USACE, Future Directions Branch, Headquarters, January 22, 2025. For earlier fiscal years,
sources included the pertinent edition of the Base Structure Report and data obtained by CRS from the DOD.
Notes: Acreage totals may not add to the precise totals shown due to small discrepancies in the sources used
and rounding. The DOD is currently “using a secondary Department of War designation” under Executive
Order 14347. See other notes for Table 1.
a. This figure includes approximately 253,000 acres of submerged lands and waters within the Hawaiian Islands
National Wildlife Refuge.
b. The FS territories total of 28,929 reflects acreage in Puerto Rico (28,789 acres) and the U.S. Virgin Islands
(140 acres). The FWS territories figure of 25,219 includes acreage in America Samoa (1,613 acres), Guam
(1,218 acres), Puerto Rico (21,797 acres), and the U.S. Virgin Islands (590 acres). Acreage amounts for
FWS-managed land in US territories do not include lands in the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands in the Atlantic
and Pacific Oceans. The NPS territories figure of 26,859 reflects acreage in Guam (958 acres), Puerto Rico
(53 acres), and the U.S. Virgin Islands (25,848 acres). The DOD territories figure of 171,524 includes
acreage in Guam (62,128 acres), Puerto Rico (17,008 acres), the U.S. Virgin Islands (44 acres), Johnston
Atoll (684 acres), the Northern Mariana Islands (89,059 acres), and Wake Island (2,600 acres).
Congressional Research Service
14
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
Figure 1. Western Federal Lands Managed by Four Agencies
Source: Created by CRS using data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2024,
Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) 4.1 and U.S. Census Bureau.
Notes: Scale 1:17,000,000. BLM = Bureau of Land Management, FS = U.S. Forest Service, FWS = U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, NPS = National Park Service. The BLM also manages numerous small parcels, (e.g., islands along
the California coast that are not visible in this map). PAD-US, 2024 contains data for these land management
agencies with differing dates of currency.
Congressional Research Service
15
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
Figure 2. Eastern Federal Lands Managed by Four Agencies
Source: Created by CRS using data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2024,
Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) 4.1 and U.S. Census Bureau.
Note: Scale 1:17,000,000. BLM = Bureau of Land Management, FS = U.S. Forest Service, FWS = U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, NPS = National Park Service. PAD-US, 2024 contains data for these land management agencies
with differing dates of currency.
Congressional Research Service
16
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
Figure 3. Federal Lands in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands Managed by Four Agencies
Source: Created by CRS using data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2024,
Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) 4.1 and U.S. Census Bureau.
Note: Hawaii scale 1:7,500,000, Alaska scale 1:33,000,000, Guam scale 1:900,000, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin
Islands scale 1:4,500,000. BLM = Bureau of Land Management, FS = U.S. Forest Service, FWS = U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, NPS = National Park Service. PAD-US, 2024 contains data for these land management agencies
with differing dates of currency.
Federal Land Ownership Changes, 1990-2024
Since 1990, the total acreage of federal land in the United States has declined by 31.7 million
acres, or 4.9% of the total of the five agencies, because the acreage of disposed areas of federal
Congressional Research Service
17
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
lands has exceeded the area acquired.55 Table 3 shows and explains the changes in ownership
among the five agencies.
The total acreage decline reflects decreased acreage for two agencies and increased acreage for
three others. BLM ownership decreased by 27.6 million acres (10.2%), in large part due to the
disposal of BLM land, under law, to the State of Alaska, Alaska Natives, and Alaska Native
Corporations.56 DOD land ownership also declined, by 12.2 million acres (59.2%). This decline
appears to be primarily due to changes in legal arrangements for managing military installations
rather than changes in the sizes of the installations themselves. For instance, of the 26.8 million
acres of defense sites (worldwide)57—more than 97.1% of which are in the United States or
territories—8.4 million acres (31.3%) were federally owned.58 By comparison, of the 28.4 million
acres of defense sites (worldwide) in DOD’s 2010 report, approximately 19.8 million (70%) were
federally owned.59
In contrast, the NPS, FWS, and FS expanded their acreage during the period, with the NPS
having the largest increase in both acreage and percentage growth—3.9 million acres (5.2%). In
some cases, a decrease in one agency’s acreage was tied to an increase in acreage managed by
another agency, through enactment of laws that transferred administrative jurisdiction over
federal land from one agency to another.60
Table 3. Change in Federal Acreage in the United States Since 1990, by Agency
1990
2000
2010
2020
2024
Change
1990-2024
% Change
Since 1990
BLM
272,029,418
264,398,133
247,859,076
244,378,573
244,387,084
-27,642,334
-10.2%
FS
191,367,364
192,355,099
192,880,840
193,012,827
193,116,933
1,749,569
0.9%
FWS
86,822,107
88,225,669
88,948,699
89,256,317
89,255,595
2,433,488
2.8%
NPS
76,133,510
77,931,021
79,691,484
80,008,167
80,071,977
3,938,467
5.2%
DODa
20,501,315
24,052,268
19,421,540
8,630,393
8,371,705
-12,129,610
-59.2%
U.S. Total
646,853,714
646,962,190
628,801,639
615,286,278
615,203,294
-31,650,420
-4.9%
Sources: See sources listed Table 2.
Notes: Acreage totals may not add to the precise totals shown due to small discrepancies in the sources used
and rounding. See other notes for Table 1. BLM = Bureau of Land Management, FS = U.S. Forest Service, FWS
55 Congress also has made various designations on federal lands, such as wilderness and national park.
56 Other actions and factors contributed to the decline in BLM lands. For example, a reduction of about 1 million acres
(primarily in the eastern states) resulted from a revision in the way the BLM reported acreage withdrawn or reserved
for another federal agency or purpose.
57
This figure is derived from the DOD, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Infrastructure, Base
Structure Report, Fiscal Year 2025 Baseline (A Summary of the Real Property Inventory Data), as of September 30,
2024, https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/imr/rpid/docs/Base-Structure-Report-FY25.xlsx.
58 The 26.8 million acre figure used here includes lands worldwide, whereas the 8.8 million acre figure shown for
FY2024 elsewhere in this report reflects land in the United States only.
59 The 19.8 million acre figure used here includes land worldwide, more than 97% of which is in the United States. The
19.4 million acre figure shown for 2010 in Table 3 reflects land in the United States only.
60 For instance, a decrease in BLM acreage and an increase in NPS acreage was the result of enactment of the
California Desert Protection Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-433). Among other provisions, the law established one new national
park unit and expanded two other park units on land that was owned by the BLM, and transferred ownership of the
lands to the NPS. The BLM estimated the total transfer of BLM land to the NPS for the three areas at 2.9 million acres.
See DOI, BLM, “California Desert Protection Act Celebrates 15 Years,” press release, October 30, 2009,
https://www.blm.gov/press-release/california-desert-protection-act-celebrates-15-years.
Congressional Research Service
18
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
= U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NPS = National Park Service, and DOD = Department of Defense. DOD is
currently “using a secondary Department of War designation” under Executive Order 14347. Also, estimates
generally reflect the end of the fiscal year for the years shown (i.e., September 30).
a. The DOD data reflected in this table do not correspond to three of the years shown: 1990, 2000, and
2010. This is because reports for those years do not appear to be available and/or contained data from
which it is challenging, if not impossible, to determine acres owned. For these reasons, the DOD figures for
these years were derived respectively from the FY1989 Base Structure Report (published in February
1988), the FY1999 Base Structure Report (with data as of September 30, 1999), and the FY2010 Base
Structure Report (with data as of September 30, 2009).
The total federal acreage decline (shown in Table 3) is a composite of various decreases in
acreage in 16 states and increases in acreage in 35 states (including the District of Columbia).
Much of the decline in federal land ownership since 1990 occurred in Alaska. As shown in Table
4, federal land declined in Alaska by 23.3 million acres (9.5%) between 1990 and 2024. As noted,
this decline in Alaska is largely the result of the disposal of BLM land under Alaska-specific
laws. Specifically, BLM land in Alaska declined from 92.5 million acres in 1990 to 71.1 million
acres in 2024, a 21.4 million acre (23.1%) decline.
Since 1990, federal land also has decreased in the 11 contiguous western states, from 356.0
million in 1990 to 345.5 million in 2024, a 10.5 million acre (2.9%) decline. Reflected in the
overall decline are reductions for 6 of the 11 states, with decreases of 6.4 million acres in
Arizona, 3.9 million acres in Nevada,61 and smaller decreases in four other states. From 1990 to
2024, 5 of the 11 states each had increases ranging roughly from 0.2 million acres to 0.5 million
acres, with the largest being in Colorado.
Outside Alaska and the other western states, federal land increased from 45.2 million acres in
1990 to 47.3 million acres in 2024. This was a 2.1 million acre (4.7%) increase. This increase was
not uniform, with declines in some states and varying increases (in acreages and percentage) in
others.
Table 4. Change in Federal Acreage in the United States Since 1990, by State
1990
Alabama
2000
2010
2020
2024
Change
1990-2024
% Change
Since
1990
944,505
979,907
871,232
873,019
875,707
-68,798
-7.3%
Alaska
245,669,027
237,828,917
225,848,164
222,565,221
222,373,941
-23,295,086
-9.5%
Arizona
34,399,867
33,421,887
30,741,287
28,032,427
27,961,796
-6,438,071
-18.7%
Arkansas
3,147,518
3,418,455
3,161,978
3,164,472
3,174,549
27,031
0.9%
California
46,182,591
47,490,824
47,797,533
45,375,956
45,391,499
-791,092
-1.7%
Colorado
23,579,790
24,001,922
24,086,075
24,077,855
24,118,417
538,627
2.3%
Connecticut
6,784
9,012
8,557
9,328
9,775
2,991
44.1%
Delaware
27,731
28,397
28,574
29,918
29,934
2,203
7.9%
D.C.
9,533
8,466
8,450
9,650
9,807
274
2.9%
Florida
4,344,976
4,671,958
4,536,811
4,498,013
4,540,641
195,665
4.5%
Georgia
1,921,674
1,933,464
1,956,720
1,977,442
1,974,694
53,020
2.8%
Hawaii
715,215
682,650
833,786
832,492
861,254
146,039
20.4%
61 These reductions were due primarily to relatively large reductions of both BLM and DOD land in Arizona and of
DOD land in Nevada.
Congressional Research Service
19
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
Change
1990-2024
% Change
Since
1990
1990
2000
2010
2020
2024
Idaho
32,566,081
32,569,711
32,635,835
32,788,125
32,785,766
219,685
0.7%
Illinois
353,061
403,835
406,734
416,306
414,772
61,711
17.5%
Indiana
274,483
394,243
340,696
384,391
383,751
109,268
39.8%
Iowa
33,247
83,134
122,602
98,221
99,698
66,451
199.9%
Kansas
281,135
300,465
301,157
253,915
254,412
-26,723
-9.5%
Kentucky
966,483
1,065,814
1,083,104
1,017,658
1,022,623
56,140
5.8%
Louisiana
1,578,151
1,565,875
1,330,429
1,386,028
1,391,067
-187,084
-11.9%
Maine
176,486
210,167
209,735
302,684
305,213
128,727
72.9%
Maryland
173,707
190,783
195,986
208,121
209,648
35,941
20.7%
Massachusetts
63,291
63,998
81,692
62,738
62,956
-335
-0.5%
Michigan
3,649,258
3,692,271
3,637,965
3,639,118
3,642,187
-7,071
-0.2%
Minnesota
3,545,702
3,581,741
3,469,211
3,509,410
3,506,284
-39,418
-1.1%
Mississippi
1,478,726
1,544,501
1,523,574
1,556,068
1,556,411
77,685
5.3%
Missouri
1,666,718
1,676,175
1,675,400
1,701,101
1,704,258
37,540
2.3%
Montana
26,726,219
26,745,666
26,921,861
27,115,921
27,168,417
442,198
1.7%
Nebraska
528,707
556,347
549,346
548,176
558,783
30,076
5.7%
Nevada
60,012,488
60,180,297
56,961,778
56,231,079
56,081,005
-3,931,483
-6.6%
New Hampshire
734,163
754,858
777,807
805,563
806,343
72,180
9.8%
New Jersey
146,436
164,865
176,691
181,047
183,084
36,648
25.0%
New Mexico
24,742,260
26,829,296
27,001,583
24,689,022
24,581,379
-160,881
-0.7%
New York
215,441
229,097
211,422
215,459
210,819
-4,622
-2.1%
North Carolina
2,289,509
2,415,560
2,426,699
2,422,686
2,428,165
138,656
6.1%
North Dakota
1,727,541
1,729,430
1,735,755
1,732,776
1,736,495
8,954
0.5%
Ohio
234,396
289,566
298,500
305,967
305,753
71,357
30.4%
Oklahoma
505,898
696,377
703,336
653,488
653,958
148,060
29.3%
Oregon
32,062,004
32,703,212
32,665,430
32,212,852
32,226,209
164,205
0.5%
Pennsylvania
611,249
598,165
616,895
607,709
608,796
-2,453
-0.4%
Rhode Island
3,110
4,867
5,248
4,523
4,458
1,348
43.3%
South Carolina
891,182
872,173
898,637
905,095
911,150
19,968
2.2%
South Dakota
2,626,594
2,642,646
2,646,241
2,642,904
2,645,668
19,074
0.7%
Tennessee
980,416
1,251,514
1,273,974
1,282,422
1,269,357
288,941
29.5%
Texas
2,651,675
2,855,997
2,977,950
3,223,919
3,191,777
540,102
20.4%
Utah
33,582,578
34,982,884
35,033,603
33,266,796
33,240,265
-342,313
-1.0%
Vermont
346,518
428,314
453,871
465,927
474,866
128,348
37.0%
Virginia
2,319,524
2,381,575
2,358,071
2,358,610
2,321,799
2,275
0.1%
Washington
11,983,984
12,646,137
12,173,813
12,198,126
12,227,674
243,690
2.0%
Congressional Research Service
20
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
Change
1990-2024
% Change
Since
1990
1990
2000
2010
2020
2024
West Virginia
1,062,500
1,096,956
1,130,951
1,135,390
1,140,201
77,701
7.3%
Wisconsin
1,980,460
2,006,778
1,865,374
1,853,739
1,855,622
-124,838
-6.3%
Wyoming
30,133,121
30,081,046
30,043,513
29,457,403
29,710,191
-422,930
-1.4%
646,853,714 646,962,190 628,801,639 615,286,278 615,203,294 -31,650,420
-4.9%
U.S. Total
Sources: See sources listed in Table 2.
Notes: DOD = Department of Defense. The DOD is currently “using a secondary Department of War
designation” under Executive Order 14347. The DOD data reflected in this table do not correspond to three of
the years shown: 1990, 2000, and 2010. This is because reports for those years do not appear to be available
and/or contained data from which it is especially challenging if not impossible to determine acres owned. For
these reasons, the DOD figures for these years were derived respectively from the FY1989 Base Structure
Report (published in February 1988), the FY1999 Base Structure Report (with data as of September 30, 1999),
and the FY2010 Base Structure Report (with data as of September 30, 2009). Also, acreage totals may not add to
the precise totals shown due to small discrepancies in the sources used and rounding. See other notes for Table
1 and Table 3.
Current Issues
Certain issues have recurred throughout the history of federal land ownership. One is the optimal
extent of ownership. Some advocate disposing of federal lands to state or private ownership;
others favor retaining currently owned lands; still others promote land acquisition by the federal
government, including through increased or more stable funding sources. Another focus is on the
condition of federal lands and related infrastructure, and how to balance the restoration and
maintenance of current assets with the acquisition of additional lands. Some assert that lands and
infrastructure have deteriorated and that agency activities and funding should focus on restoration
and maintenance, whereas others advocate expanding federal protection to additional lands.
Debates also encompass the extent to which federal lands should be developed, preserved, and
open to recreation and whether federal lands should be managed primarily to produce national
benefits or benefits primarily for the localities and states in which the lands are located. In
addition, border security, along and near the southwestern border in particular, raises questions
related to management of, and access to, certain federal lands. These questions stem, in part, from
the differing roles of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the federal land
management agencies.
Extent of Ownership
As noted above, the optimal extent of federal land ownership is an enduring issue for Congress.
Current debates encompass the extent to which the federal government should dispose of, retain,
or acquire lands in general and in particular areas. Advocates of retention of federal lands, and
federal acquisition of additional lands, assert a variety of benefits to the public of federal land
ownership. They include protection and preservation of unique natural and other resources, open
space, and public access, especially for recreation. Some support land protection from
development.62
62 For illustrative perspectives supporting keeping lands in federal ownership, see Steven Davis, In Defense of Public
Lands: The Case against Privatization and Transfer (Temple University Press, 2018); Sarah Bardeen, “America’s
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
21
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
Disposal advocates have expressed concerns about the efficacy and efficiency of federal land
management, accessibility of federal lands for certain types of recreation, and limitations on
development of federal lands. Some support selling federal land for financial reasons, such as to
help lower federal expenditures, reduce the deficit, or balance the budget. Others assert that
limited federal resources constrain agencies’ abilities to protect and manage the lands and
resources. Other concerns involve the potential influence of federal land protection on private
property, development, and local economic activity. Some seek disposal to governmental or
private landowners to foster state, local, and private control over lands and resources.63
Other issues center on the suitability of authorities for acquiring and disposing of lands and the
use of such authorities in particular areas. Congress has provided to the federal agencies varying
authorities for acquiring and disposing of land.64 With regard to acquisition, the BLM has
relatively broad authority, the FWS has various authorities, and the FS authority is mostly limited
to lands within or contiguous to the boundaries of a national forest. The DOD also has authority
for acquisitions.65 By contrast, the NPS has no general authority to acquire land to create new
park units. The five agencies have authority to acquire land by condemnation, but with the
exception of DOD, this authority has been used rarely by these agencies in recent decades.
The primary funding mechanism for federal land acquisition, for the four major federal land
management agencies, has been appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF).66 For the FWS, the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund provides an additional source of
mandatory spending for land acquisition. This fund is supported by sales of Duck Stamps and
import taxes on arms and ammunition.67 Funding for acquisitions by the DOD has been provided
in DOD appropriations laws. There continue to be different views as to acquisition funding,
including the appropriate amount, type (discretionary and/or mandatory), and location of use.
With regard to disposal, the NPS and FWS have no general authority to dispose of the lands they
administer, and the FS disposal authorities are restricted. The BLM has broader authority under
provisions of FLPMA and other laws, such as the Recreation and Public Purposes Act.68 DOD
lands that are excess to military needs generally can be disposed of under the surplus property
process administered by the General Services Administration (GSA). Legislation authorizing base
Public Lands: A Bipartisan Political Success Story,” Public Policy Institute of California, May 16, 2022,
https://www.ppic.org/blog/americas-public-lands-a-bipartisan-political-success-story/; and Scott Lehmann, “Privatizing
Public Lands: A Bad Idea,” UC Law Environmental Journal, vol. 3, no. 2 (Winter 1996), pp. 231-245,
https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1477&context=hastings_environmental_law_journal.
63 For illustrative perspectives supporting removing lands from federal ownership, see Randal O’Toole, “Interior
Department and Public Lands,” CATO Institute, 2017, https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/catohandbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/51-interior-department-public-lands; and Paul M. Jakus et al., “Western
Public Lands and the Fiscal Implications of a Transfer to States,” Land Economics, vol. 93, no. 3 (August 2017), pp.
371-389. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26449071.
64 For information on the acquisition and disposal authorities of the four major federal land management agencies, see
CRS Report RL34273, Federal Land Ownership: Acquisition and Disposal Authorities, by Carol Hardy Vincent et al.
65 See 10 U.S.C. §2663.
66 For information on the Land and Water Conservation Fund, see CRS Report R46563, Land and Water Conservation
Fund: Processes and Criteria for Allocating Funds, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent and CRS In Focus IF12256,
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF): Frequently Asked Questions, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
67 For information on land acquisition by FWS, including through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, see CRS
Report R48381, National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS): Overview and Issues for Congress, by Eric P. Nardi, pp. 1214.
68 For FLPMA provisions on disposal, see 43 U.S.C. §1713. For provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act,
see 43 U.S.C. §§869 et seq. For an overview of BLM disposal requirements and processes, see CRS Report R48079,
Land Disposal Authorities and Processes of the Bureau of Land Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
Congressional Research Service
22
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds typically has authorized the GSA to delegate its disposal
authority to the Secretary of Defense during BRAC rounds.69
It is not uncommon for Congress to enact legislation providing for the acquisition or disposal of
lands where an agency lacks authority, directing agencies to use existing authority, or modifying
the terms and conditions of existing authorities for particular parcels of land. Further, recent
Congresses have considered measures to establish or amend broader authorities for acquiring or
disposing of land.70
Western Land Concentration
The concentration of federal lands in the West has contributed to a higher degree of controversy
over federal land ownership in that part of the country.71 In particular, the dominance of BLM and
FS lands in the western states has led to various efforts to divest the federal government of
significant amounts of land. As noted, the Sagebrush Rebellion in the 1970s and 1980s sought to
foster divestiture of federal lands. However, that effort was not successful in achieving this end,
either through legal challenges in the federal courts or through efforts to persuade the Reagan
Administration and Congress to transfer the lands to state or private ownership. In more recent
years, some western states, among others, have considered measures to provide for or express
support for the transfer of federal lands to states, to establish task forces or commissions to
examine federal land transfer issues, and to assert management authority over federal lands. Some
supporters of continued or expanded federal land ownership have asserted that state and local
resource constraints, other economic considerations, or environmental or recreational priorities
weigh against state challenges to federal land ownership. In recent years, some states have
considered measures to express support for federal lands or to limit the sale of federal lands in the
state.72
As shown in Table 1 and Table 2, the 11 contiguous western states and Alaska have extensive
areas of federal lands. Table 5 summarizes the data in Table 1 to clarify the difference in the
extent of federal ownership in the United States between western and other states. As can be seen
in Table 5, 60.8% of the land in Alaska is federally owned, which includes 85.9% of the total
FWS lands and 65.5% of the total NPS lands. In contrast, 0.3% of DOD-owned lands are in
Alaska. Of the land in the 11 contiguous western states, 45.9% is federally owned, which includes
73.4% of total FS lands and 70.8% of total BLM lands. In the rest of the country, the federal
government owns 4.1% of the lands. The FS manages the largest portion of this land in other
states—61.8%—and the BLM manages the least—0.8%. Slightly more than half (51.1%) of the
69 For information on the disposal of surplus federal property by the U.S. General Services Administration, see 40
U.S.C. §§101 et seq. and CRS Report R47722, Overview of the General Services Administration: Acquisition Services
and Real Property Management, by Dominick A. Fiorentino and Garrett Hatch, especially pp. 15-16. For information
on DOD disposal during BRAC rounds, see CRS Report R48547, Excess Military Infrastructure and the Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Process, by Andrew Tilghman.
70 For additional information on, and examples of, congressional action on measures to acquire or dispose of land, or to
establish or modify current acquisition and disposal authorities, see CRS Report RL34273, Federal Land Ownership:
Acquisition and Disposal Authorities, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent, especially pp. 2-3.
71 For information on these debates, see Paul W. Gates, “Public Land Issues in the United States,” Western Historical
Quarterly, vol. 2, no. 4, (October 1971), pp. 363-376; Char Miller, Public Lands, Public Debates: A Century of
Controversy (Oregon State University Press, 2012); and Christopher A. Simon, et al., “Western Rebellion: Who Owns
the West?” in The Environmental Politics and Policy of Western Public Lands, eds., Erika Allen Wolters and Brent S.
Steel (Oregon State University Press, 2020), https://open.oregonstate.education/environmentalpolitics/chapter/westernrebellion/.
72 For a discussion of issues related to potential state management of federal lands, see CRS Report R44267, State
Management of Federal Lands: Frequently Asked Questions, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
Congressional Research Service
23
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
DOD lands are in the other states, with slightly less than half (48.6%) in the 11 western states.
The remaining lands (0.3%) are in Alaska.
Table 5. Federal Acreage in the United States, by Agency and State or Region, 2024
Alaska
11 Western
Statesa
Other
States
Total
BLM
71,105,178
172,904,932
376,974
244,387,084
FS
22,132,738
141,685,230
29,298,965
193,116,933
FWS
76,653,680
6,366,385
6,235,527
89,255,595
NPS
52,456,775
20,465,158
7,150,045
80,071,977
DOD
25,570
4,070,913
4,275,223
8,371,705
Total
222,373,941
345,492,617
47,336,734
615,203,294
Acreage of States
365,481,600
752,947,840
1,152,913,920
2,271,343,360
60.8%
45.9%
4.1%
27.1%
Percentage Federal
Sources: For federal lands, see sources listed in Table 2. Total acreage of states is from U.S. General Services
Administration, Office of Governmentwide Policy, Federal Real Property Profile, as of September 30, 2004, Table 16,
pp. 18-19.
Notes: Acreage totals may not add to the precise totals shown due to small discrepancies in the sources used
and rounding. See other notes for Table 1. BLM = Bureau of Land Management, FS = U.S. Forest Service, FWS
= U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NPS = National Park Service, and DOD = Department of Defense. The DOD is
currently “using a secondary Department of War designation” under Executive Order 14347.
a. The 11 western states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon,
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Maintaining Infrastructure and Lands
Debate continues over how to balance the acquisition of new assets and lands with the
maintenance of the agencies’ existing infrastructure and the care of current federal lands. Some
assert that addressing the condition of infrastructure and lands in current federal ownership is
paramount. They support ecological restoration as a focus of agency activities and funding and an
emphasis on managing current federal lands for continued productivity and public benefit. They
oppose new land acquisitions and unit designations until the backlog of maintenance activities
has been eliminated or greatly reduced and the condition of current range, forest, and other
federal lands is significantly improved. Others contend that expanding federal protection to
additional lands is essential to provide new areas for public use, protect important natural and
cultural resources, and respond to changing land and resource conditions.73
The ecological condition of current federal lands has long been a focus of attention. For example,
the poor condition of public rangelands due to overgrazing was the rationale for enacting the
Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and creating the BLM.74 Today, debates on the health and
73 For information and perspectives regarding how to balance acquiring new assets and maintaining current assets, see
CRS Report RS20158, National Park System: Establishing New Units, by Laura B. Comay; Tate Watkins and Jack
Smith, “The Future of the Great American Outdoors,” PERC, December 16, 2020, https://perc.org/2020/12/16/thefuture-of-the-great-american-outdoors/; and Michael Kellett, “A Modest Proposal: We Need More National Parks,”
Sierra: The Magazine of the Sierra Club, August 17, 2021, https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/modest-proposal-weneed-more-national-parks.
74 S.T. Dana and S.K. Fairfax, Forest and Range Policy: Its Development in the United States, 2nd ed. (McGraw-Hill
Book Co., 1980), pp. 158-164.
Congressional Research Service
24
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
productivity of federal lands center on rangelands, forests, riparian areas, and other resources.
These lands and resources might be affected in some areas by various land uses, such as livestock
grazing, recreation, energy development, and rights-of-way. Many other variables might impact
the health of federal lands and resources, including wildfires, community expansion, invasive
weeds, and drought.75
The deferred maintenance of federal infrastructure also has been a focus of Congress and the
executive branch for many years. Deferred maintenance, often called the maintenance backlog, is
defined as maintenance that was not done when scheduled or planned.76 The agencies assert that
continuing to defer maintenance of facilities accelerates their rate of deterioration, increases their
repair costs, and decreases their value.77
Congressional and administrative attention has centered on the NPS backlog. The DOI estimated
deferred maintenance for the NPS for FY2025 at $24.24 billion.78 Of the total deferred
maintenance, 38.9% was for transportation assets, 29.8% was for assets related to recreational
and visitor experience, 17.0% was for water infrastructure and utilities, 11.5% was for operational
buildings, and 2.7% was for other structures. The DOI estimates of the NPS backlog have
increased overall since FY1999, from $4.25 billion in that year.79 It is unclear what portion of the
change is due to the addition of maintenance work that was not done on time, the availability of
more precise estimates of the backlog, or inflation and market trends (e.g., construction-related),
among other factors. The NPS, as well as the other land management agencies, increased efforts
to define and quantify maintenance needs over the past two decades.
While attention has focused on the NPS backlog, the other federal land management agencies
also have maintenance backlogs. The FS estimated its backlog for FY2025 at $10.81 billion.80 Of
the total deferred maintenance, 55.3% was for roads,81 24.6% was for buildings, and the
remaining 20.1% was for a variety of other assets (e.g., bridges and water systems). For FY2025,
the DOI estimated the BLM backlog at $6.60 billion, with 85.2% for transportation assets and the
remainder for various other assets.82 The DOI estimated the FWS backlog at $3.51 billion, with
75 For information on public land health, see BLM, “Rangeland Heath,” https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-
resources/rangelands-and-grazing/rangeland-health, accessed August 17, 2026; BLM, “A Critical Call to Restore Our
Public Lands,” November 2024, https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/202411/Restoration%20Blueprint%20508_0.pdf; and Environmental Protection Agency, “Extent and Distribution: What
Are the Trends in the Extent and Distribution of the Nation’s Ecological Systems?, https://www.epa.gov/reportenvironment/extent-and-distribution, accessed August 17, 2026.
76 This definition is derived from the “FASAB Handbook of Federal Accounting Standards and Other Pronouncements,
as Amended, as of June 30, 2025,” available on the website of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board at
https://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/2025_FASAB_Handbook.pdf.
77 For information on deferred maintenance on federal lands, including factors potentially impacting such deferred
maintenance, see CRS Report R43997, Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies: FY2013FY2022 Estimates and Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent; CRS Report R48136, National Park Service Deferred
Maintenance: Overview and Issues, by Laura B. Comay; CRS Insight IN12729, Legacy Restoration Fund for Deferred
Maintenance: 119th Congress Reauthorization Bills, by Laura B. Comay and Carol Hardy Vincent; and Government
Accountability Office, Deferred Maintenance: Agencies Generally Followed Leading Practices in Selections but Faced
Challenges, GAO-24-106495, January 2024, https://www.gao.gov/assets/d24106495.pdf.
78 DOI, NPS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2027, pp. 179-180,
https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2026-04/fy2027greenbooknps_0.pdf.
79 FY1999 is the first year for which an estimate is readily available.
80 USDA, Forest Service, Fiscal Year 2025, Quarter 2 Deferred Maintenance Needs,
https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fy25-q2-deferred-maint-report.pdf.
81 This estimate of the deferred maintenance for roads reflects passenger-car roads.
82 DOI, BLM, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2027, p. 114 (pdf),
https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2026-04/fy2027greenbookblm0.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
25
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
31.7% for roads, bridges, and trails and the remainder split roughly equally among three other
asset classes (buildings, water management, and other structures).83 The four agencies together
had a combined FY2025 backlog estimated at $45.16 billion.
The agency backlogs have been attributed to decades of funding shortfalls,84 and changes in
agency methodologies for defining deferred maintenance, among other factors.85 However, it is
unclear how much total funding has been provided for the maintenance backlog over the years.
Annual presidential budget requests and appropriations laws typically have not identified funds
from all sources that may be used to address the maintenance backlog. Among other sources, the
land management agencies receive annual discretionary appropriations for deferred maintenance.
In addition, for each of FY2021-FY2025, a major source of funding for the four agencies (and the
Bureau of Indian Education) was provided under provisions of the Great American Outdoors Act
(P.L. 116-152).86 That law provided $1.9 billion annually in mandatory appropriations for agency
deferred maintenance. Much of the funding is in the process of being allocated, so its full effect is
not known. Opinions differ over the level of funds needed to address deferred maintenance, the
extent to which funding should be discretionary or mandatory, whether to use funds from other
programs and/or new sources, and how to prioritize funds for maintenance needs.
Protection and Use
The extent to which federal lands should be opened to development, available for recreation,
and/or preserved has been controversial. Differences of opinion exist on the amount of traditional
commercial development that should be allowed, particularly involving energy development,
livestock grazing, and timber harvesting. Whether and where to restrict types of recreation, such
as motorized off-road vehicles, also has been a focus. How much land to dedicate to enhanced
protection, what type of protection to provide, and who should protect federal lands are
continuing questions. Another area under consideration involves how to balance the protection of
wild horses and burros on federal lands with protection of the range and other land uses.87
83 DOI, FWS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2027, p. 69,
https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2026-04/fy2027greenbookfws_0.pdf.
84 DOI, Deferred Maintenance & Repair, “What is Deferred Maintenance and Repair?,” https://www.doi.gov/deferredmaintenance-and-repair.
85 Factors potentially contributing to the overall increase in the deferred maintenance of federal land management
agencies are discussed in CRS products including the following: CRS Report R43997, Deferred Maintenance of
Federal Land Management Agencies: FY2013-FY2022 Estimates and Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent and CRS Report
R48136, National Park Service Deferred Maintenance: Overview and Issues, by Laura B. Comay.
86 For information on deferred maintenance funding under the Great American Outdoors Act, see CRS In Focus
IF12888, The Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA): Frequently Asked Questions, by Carol Hardy Vincent and Laura
B. Comay.
87 For a variety of perspectives on protection and use of federal lands, see, for example, The Nature Conservancy,
“Protect Public Lands: Defend Our Natural Treasures,” April 26, 2026, https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/whowe-are/how-we-work/policy/america-public-lands/; Gary D. Libecap, “The Land of Many Opportunity Costs,” Cato
Institute, Regulation, Fall 2018, https://www.cato.org/regulation/fall-2018/land-many-opportunity-costs; U.S.
Department of Energy, “New Interagency Study Finds Further Expansion of Renewable Energy Production on Federal
Lands Could Power Millions More American Homes by 2035,” January 14, 2025,
https://www.energy.gov/articles/new-interagency-study-finds-further-expansion-renewable-energy-production-federallands; Sarah Gibbens, “Activists Fear a New Threat to Biodiversity—Renewable Energy,” National Geographic, May
22, 2022, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/activists-fear-biodiversity-threat-from-renewableenergy; Dylan Soares, “Public Comment: Conservation Requires Better Wild Horse and Burro Management,” PERC,
July 9, 2026, https://perc.org/2026/07/09/public-comment-conservation-requires-better-wild-horse-and-burromanagement/; and Sierra Club, “Wild Horse and Burro Policy,” https://www.sierraclub.org/policy/wildlife/feralanimals.
Congressional Research Service
26
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
Debates also encompass whether federal lands should be managed primarily to emphasize
benefits nationally or for the localities and states where the lands are located. National benefits
can include using lands to produce wood products for housing or to extract energy from
traditional (oil, gas, coal) and alternative/renewable sources (wind, solar, geothermal, biomass).
Other national benefits might encompass clean water for downstream uses, biodiversity for
ecological resilience and adaptability, and wild animals and wild places for human enjoyment.
Local benefits can include economic activities, such as livestock grazing, timber for sawmills, ski
areas, tourism, and other types of development. Local benefits could also be scenic vistas and
areas for recreation—picnicking, sightseeing, backpacking, four-wheeling, snowmobiling,
hunting and fishing, and more.
Federally recognized Tribes also may have a stake in the management of federal lands, which
frequently encompass areas of historic, cultural, or religious importance to Tribes and their
members. Some Tribes may view the maintenance of sacred sites and continued access to
culturally important vistas or natural resources as essential; others may prioritize the opportunities
for economic growth or self-sufficiency that may come from development.88
At some levels, the many uses and values can generally be compatible. However, as demands on
the federal lands have risen, the conflicts among uses and values have escalated. Some lands—
notably those administered by the FWS and DOD—have an overriding primary purpose (wildlife
habitat and military needs, respectively). The conflicts typically are greatest for the multiple-use
lands managed by the BLM and FS, because the potential uses and values are more diverse.
Other issues of debate include who decides the national-local balance in control of federal lands
and how those decisions are made. Some stakeholders favor more local input and control by those
in the areas where federal lands are located, to foster local needs and uses. Others seek to
maintain or enhance the federal role in land management on the grounds that this better represents
the interests and needs of all citizens.
Border Security
Border security presents special challenges on federal lands, given the extensive federal lands
along the southwestern border with Mexico and the northern border with Canada. The federal
lands on the borders tend to be geographically remote and include mountains, deserts, and other
inhospitable terrain with limited law enforcement coverage. The lands are managed by different
federal agencies, under various laws, and for many purposes.
The southwestern border with Mexico has been a particular focus. There are various estimates
and depictions of federal lands on or near the border. For instance, by one estimate, six different
agencies manage 621.5 (linear) miles of federal lands along the southwestern border.89 Figure 4
depicts federal lands located within 50 and 100 miles from the U.S.-Mexican border that are
managed by the four main federal land management agencies.
The extent to which federal and other lands along the southwestern border should be used to deter
illegal immigration and other illegal activity continues to be under debate. Efforts to build
88 CRS Report R47563, Tribal Co-management of Federal Lands: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by
Mariel J. Murray; CRS Report R48093, Federal-Tribal Consultation: Background and Issues for Congress,
coordinated by Mariel J. Murray; and CRS Report R48934, Introduction to Tribal Forestry, by Mariel J. Murray and
Anne A. Riddle.
89 The estimate of 621.5 linear miles was prepared by CRS in 2018 based on a 2016 database. It excludes 71.9 miles of
land managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for a total of 693.4 miles of federal and Indian lands on the border. For
additional information, see CRS In Focus IF10832, Federal and Indian Lands on the U.S.-Mexico Border, by Carol
Hardy Vincent and James C. Uzel.
Congressional Research Service
27
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
barriers and other infrastructure to reduce illicit activity at the border, such as illegal entry and
drug and contraband smuggling, are a priority for the Trump Administration as well as for some
Members of Congress and portions of the public.90 By contrast, some Members of Congress and
segments of the public oppose barrier construction as potentially costly, possibly damaging to
lands and resources, and unlikely to be a major deterrent to illegal activity, among other reasons.91
Within DHS, the U.S. Border Patrol has responsibility for staffing and securing the international
borders, but more than 40% of the southwestern border abuts federal and tribal lands overseen by
the FS and four DOI agencies (including the Bureau of Indian Affairs) that also have law
enforcement responsibilities.92 The Trump Administration has taken actions to foster the U.S.
military’s involvement on border lands in the interest of security.93 Differences in missions and
jurisdictional complexity among agencies may complicate border control. To facilitate control
efforts, federal agencies at times have signed memoranda of understanding (MOUs).94 Another
focus has been on the environmental effects of illegal immigration, barrier construction, and
border security enforcement on federal lands along the borders.95
90 Executive Office of the President, Presidential Proclamation 10886 of January 20, 2025, “Declaring a National
Emergency at the Southern Border of the United States,” 90 Federal Register 8327, January 29, 2025.
91 For information on funding appropriated for border barrier constructions, see CRS Report R47979, DHS Border
Barrier Funding Developments: FY2021-FY2024, by William L. Painter. For a discussion of military funding of border
security measures, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11278, Diverting Military Construction Funds During a National
Emergency: Legal Framework, by Jennifer K. Elsea.
92 U.S. Government Accountability Office, (GAO), Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Ensure a
Coordinated Federal Response to Illegal Activity on Federal Lands, GAO-11-177, November 2010, p. 4.
93 White House, “Military Mission for Sealing the Southern Border of the United States and Repelling Invasions,”
Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-4, April 11, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidentialactions/2025/04/military-mission-for-sealing-the-southern-border-of-the-united-states-and-repelling-invasions/; and
U.S. Northern Command, “DoW Support to U.S. Border Security, National Defense Areas,”
https://www.northcom.mil/BorderSecurity/#national-defense-areas.
94 For example, in 2006, DOI, DHS, and USDA entered into a memorandum of understanding entitled Cooperative
National Security and Counterterrorism Efforts on Federals Lands Along the United States’ Borders. These
departments have entered into additional memoranda of understanding addressing issues such as “road maintenance,
secure radio communication, environmental coordination, and sharing of geospatial information, among others.”
Testimony of Jon Andrew, Interagency Borderlands Coordinator, DOI, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural
Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, The Consequences of Federal Land Management Along the
U.S. Border to Rural Communities and National Security, hearings, 114th Cong., 2nd sess., April 28, 2016.
95 GAO, Southwest Border: Additional Actions Needed to Address Cultural and Natural Resource Impacts from
Barrier Construction, GAO-23-105443, September 2023, including pp. 22-30; and House Committee on Natural
Resources (majority), Subcommittee on Federal Lands, Field Oversight Hearing on “Biden’s Border Crisis: The
Consequences of Failing to Secure Federal Border Lands,” hearing memorandum, February 8, 2024, pp. 6-9,
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hearing_memo_updated_--_sub_on_fl_ov_field_hrg_02.08.24.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
28
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
Figure 4. Federal Lands Managed by Four Agencies Near the Southwestern Border
Source: Created by CRS using data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2024,
Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) 4.1; U.S. Census Bureau; the U.S. Department of State
(2017); and ERSI.
Notes: Scale 1:15,000,000. BLM = Bureau of Land Management, FS = U.S. Forest Service, FWS = U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and NPS = National Park Service. Federal lands not administered by BLM, FS, FWS, and NPS
were not included. PAD-US, 2024, contains data for these land management agencies with differing dates of
currency.
Author Information
Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Andrew Tilghman
Analyst in U.S. Defense Infrastructure Policy
Eric P. Nardi
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Scott Vierick
Research Librarian
Mainon A. Schwartz
Legislative Attorney
Congressional Research Service
29
Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
Congressional Research Service
R42346 · VERSION 20 · UPDATED
30
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.